Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Discourse to the RRS regarding Tacitus

Posted on: May 25, 2008 - 11:50pm

FathomFFI

Posts: 90

Joined: 2008-05-15

Offline

Discourse to the RRS regarding Tacitus

The quote from Tacitus in question will be found below:

Tacitus wrote:

"But neither the aid of man, nor the liberality of the prince, nor the propitiations of the gods succeeded in destroying the belief that the fire had been purposely lit. In order to put an end to this rumor, therefore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters. First, therefore, those were arrested who openly confessed; then, on their information, a great number, who were not so much convicted of the fire as of hatred of the human race. Ridicule was passed on them as they died; so that, clothed in skins of beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or committed to the flames, and when the sun had gone down they were burned to light up the night. Nero had lent his garden for this spectacle, and gave games in the Circus, mixing with the people in the dress of a charioteer or standing in the chariot. Hence there was a strong sympathy for them, though they might have been guilty enough to deserve the severest punishment, on the ground that they were sacrificed, not to the general good, but to the cruelty of one man." (Annals XV, 44)

The following is the first claim by the RRS against Tacitus:

RRS wrote:

(1) It is extremely improbable that a special report found by Tacitus had been sent earlier to Rome and incorporated into the records of the Senate, in regard to the death of a Jewish provincial, Jesus. The execution of a Nazareth carpenter would have been one of the most insignificant events conceivable among the movements of Roman history in those decades; it would have completely disappeared beneath the innumerable executions inflicted by Roman provincial authorities. For it to have been kept in any report would have been a most remarkable instance of chance.

It should be noted that the quote above is complete assertion, and provides no evidence for support. It should also be noted that the assertion above screams an argument from silence, which is a logical fallacy, since the argument basis itself upon the absence of the purported Roman records which, like most ancient Roman records, could have been lost and/or destroyed by the ravages of time. That being said, I will list the 3 RRS claims in the assertion above:

1. "It is extremely improbable that a special report found by Tacitus had been sent earlier to Rome and incorporated into the records of the Senate, in regard to the death of a Jewish provincial, Jesus."

2. "The execution of a Nazareth carpenter would have been one of the most insignificant events conceivable among the movements of Roman history in those decades; it would have completely disappeared beneath the innumerable executions inflicted by Roman provincial authorities."

3. "For it to have been kept in any report would have been a most remarkable instance of chance."

Although there are 3 listed above, I will deal with # 2 for now.

The RRS asserts that "the execution of a Nazareth carpenter would have been one of the most insignificant events... ." This statement completely contradicts the RRS' position that Jesus never existed, otherwise how could Jesus be a "Nazareth carpenter?" If he never existed, he could hardly be a carpenter. Therefore, to claim this as a reason as to why the Roman authorities would not have any record of the execution of Jesus is ludicrous and completely self-defeating. Since we know that the only record of Jesus being a carpenter comes from the Holy Bible, and the RRS claims the Gospel record as a fabrication and Jesus did not exist, then to claim that the reason the Tacitus would not have read a previous record of the execution of Jesus is because he was an insignificant carpenter not worthy of note is very surprising and considerably amusing.

In order for the statement to be valid, the RRS must admit to the existence of Jesus. If not, then I will await their explanation as to why the RRS would use what they claim as a fabrication in the Gospel of Jesus being a carpenter to support their reasoning. The logical reasoning is completely invalidated, for you cannot use a a self-proclaimed fabrication to assert a possibility, truth, or a fact. If the Gospel record of Jesus being a carpenter is a fabrication as the RRS claims, then they cannot use a fabrication to quantify their reasoning as to why no Roman records existed for Tacitus to refer to. It is completely illogical. The following is an illustration of the faulty logic:

ASSERTIONS:

1. Jesus did not exist.2. Jesus was a lowly Nazareth carpenter.3. The Romans would not have kept a record of Jesus' execution because Jesus was a lowly Nazareth carpenter.

Question: If Jesus did not exist, how then could he be a Nazareth carpenter?

The logic simply falls apart under examination. If Jesus did not exist, he therefore could not be a Nazareth carpenter, and the RRS reasoning as to why no Roman records existed for Tacitus was because Jesus was a lowly Nazareth carpenter is logically invalidated. The only way to validate this argument is to admit that the lowly Nazareth carpenter existed, which subsequently would mean that Jesus must have existed.

If the RRS argues that "Assuming Jesus existed," then 'the execution of a Nazareth carpenter would have been one of the most insignificant events conceivable... ,'" then that assumption must come with evidence to support it. This means that in order to support the assumption, you must provide evidence to support the existence of Jesus.

Interesting twist, I must say. Either way you look at it, the argument is logically invalidated, and/or the assumption contradicts the RRS position of the non-existence of a historical Jesus.

In conclusion, according to the information available in # 1, the argument in its entirety is logically invalidated. The 3 claims I listed from the RRS in # 1 all depend on Jesus existing to be validated. Since the position of the RRS is that Jesus did not exist historically, then their argument in # 1 is logically and ideologically contradictory to their claims.

I now ask the RRS to respond to this argument before I continue through the rest of their claims against Tacitus.

So wait, you're shifting goal posts again? I thought your argument was that we don't know where Tacitus got his information from? If that is your argument, he is useless as a source. Make up your mind, already. Stop shifting goal posts. If Tacitus got his information from Imperial records, prove it. Otherwise we can dismiss Tacitus as evidence.

No, not shifting goal posts, because my position is we do not know with any certainty.

What I am saying is that an argument exists which can demonstrate- with a far higher probability than your position- that Tacitus got his information from Roman records as opposed to mere hearsay.

It totally trumps your argument on credibility. In fact, this argument is so good that your argument will not even approach credulity compared to it.

Have I missed something? If you have an argument that Tacitus got his information from Roman records, I haven't seen it. I've seen an assertion but no argument.

If you've provided this in an earlier post, please point me to it before this becomes a thread of mephibo-length.

I was speaking to Rook with the undertone of "Would it be worth anyone's time to even bring up other arguments, or will you simply ignore them, belittle them with no counter evidence, or make attack me personally?"

If it is not worth my time, and it would be a fruitless endeavor, then perhaps you could explain to me why I should bother?

If you have some more material, then "scholarly" is what this can become. As it is, you have Tacitus hearing something from maybe someone, and maybe it was actually he who wrote it down. Lots of doubt can be cast on Tacitus without so much as batting a scholarly eyelash. But if you have some sort of corroboration of the things he's talking about, let's have it.

So wait, you're shifting goal posts again? I thought your argument was that we don't know where Tacitus got his information from? If that is your argument, he is useless as a source. Make up your mind, already. Stop shifting goal posts. If Tacitus got his information from Imperial records, prove it. Otherwise we can dismiss Tacitus as evidence.

No, not shifting goal posts, because my position is we do not know with any certainty.

What I am saying is that an argument exists which can demonstrate- with a far higher probability than your position- that Tacitus got his information from Roman records as opposed to mere hearsay.

It totally trumps your argument on credibility. In fact, this argument is so good that your argument will not even approach credulity compared to it.

Have I missed something? If you have an argument that Tacitus got his information from Roman records, I haven't seen it. I've seen an assertion but no argument.

If you've provided this in an earlier post, please point me to it before this becomes a thread of mephibo-length.

I was speaking to Rook with the undertone of "Would it be worth anyone's time to even bring up other arguments, or will you simply ignore them, belittle them with no counter evidence, or make attack me personally?"

If it is not worth my time, and it would be a fruitless endeavor, then perhaps you could explain to me why I should bother?

I just wanted to know if I had missed the argument somewhere. If you simply meant to take a shot at Rook, I apologize for stepping in.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Follow this simple train of thought so that you can understand what I'm saying.

1. There is no certainty as to where Tacitus got his information from.

2. There is a solid argument better than yours to suggest that Tacitus most likely got his information from Roman records.

My position is that there is no conclusive evidence about where Tacitus got his information from, but the argument that he got it from Roman records is a far better argument than what you've presented.

If there is a solid argument for where Tacitus got his information then there would be some level of certainty. You want it both ways, again. You are shifting goal posts. You cannot suggest that there is level of certainty for where he got his information and suggest that we don't know. You cannot know and not know at the same time. To put it plainly, for you, in your own terms "it's black and white." We cannot know, therefore we cannot presume Tacitus' knowledge, and therefore Tacitus is no longer useful as evidence for historicity of Jesus.

Follow this simple train of thought so that you can understand what I'm saying.

I'll try to manage.

FathomFFI wrote:

1. There is no certainty as to where Tacitus got his information from.

So the credibility of the source is zero. Okay, I'm with you so far.

FathomFFI wrote:

2. There is a solid argument better than yours to suggest that Tacitus most likely got his information from Roman records.

K, where is it?

FathomFFI wrote:

My position is that there is no conclusive evidence about where Tacitus got his information from, but the argument that he got it from Roman records is a far better argument than what you've presented.

... and the argument that he pulled it out of his ass is just as compelling. I know there were Roman records at the time, but I haven't seen Tacitus's reference to them here at all. It's all very doubtful.

FathomFFI wrote:

Simple enough?

Look at you wondering where the personal attacks are coming from. Wow.

If there is a solid argument for where Tacitus got his information then there would be some level of certainty. You want it both ways, again. You are shifting goal posts. You cannot suggest that there is level of certainty for where he got his information and suggest that we don't know. You cannot know and not know at the same time. To put it plainly, for you, in your own terms "it's black and white." We cannot know, therefore we cannot presume Tacitus' knowledge, and therefore Tacitus is no longer useful as evidence for historicity of Jesus.

Now stop playing games, I grow tired of this.

Ummm ... the optimum words were "solid argument.

And you are merely trolling because you are acting like a baby who can't stand criticism.

I have proven my point to anyone who reads this thread. So has Ebonite.

I believe it's fair to say you no longer have anything of value to add to this discussion? Unless of course you consider your childish tactics as having some kind of value?

In any case, your position on Tacitus has been thrown into serious doubt and I predict it will not even grace the desk of any scholar of renown.

Follow this simple train of thought so that you can understand what I'm saying.

1. There is no certainty as to where Tacitus got his information from.

2. There is a solid argument better than yours to suggest that Tacitus most likely got his information from Roman records.

My position is that there is no conclusive evidence about where Tacitus got his information from, but the argument that he got it from Roman records is a far better argument than what you've presented.

Simple enough?

So you're basing your argument on probability? Your argument has a slightly better chance of being the correct one ergo Rook's must be wrong?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

He has not presented any argument for this position yet. He is just trying to shift the evidence around because the very thing he was arguing against me for has blown up in his face. He wants Tacitus to be an argument for historicity, but it can't be. So the attempts to suggest that he has more evidence for a position, but he doesn't so he then suggests he has a better argument, but he still has not presented any arguments. He is trying to take Tacitus at face value ignorantly. Then he claims I am attacking him when I say he is shifting goal posts (Not an attack). What a pussy. (That is an attack) Grow some thicker skin, and get with the program.

Follow this simple train of thought so that you can understand what I'm saying.

1. There is no certainty as to where Tacitus got his information from.

2. There is a solid argument better than yours to suggest that Tacitus most likely got his information from Roman records.

My position is that there is no conclusive evidence about where Tacitus got his information from, but the argument that he got it from Roman records is a far better argument than what you've presented.

Simple enough?

So you're basing your argument on probability? Your argument has a slightly better chance of being the correct one ergo Rook's must be wrong?

Actually, Rook's argument has an almost 0% chance of being correct. It is so poor that it should never even be presented at all. I don't say this to insult him whatsoever; I only say it because it really is that horrible.

I never said that the argument for Tacitus getting his info from Roman records was mine. I said a very good argument exists, and it is scholarly.

Actually, Rook's argument has an almost 0% chance of being correct. It is so poor that it should never even be presented at all. I don't say this to insult him whatsoever; I only say it because it really is that horrible.

Which one, the one where he agrees with you that we can't be sure where Tacitus's information came from? Didn't he just agree with you? That's so confusing.

FathomFFI wrote:

I never said that the argument for Tacitus getting his info from Roman records was mine. I said a very good argument exists, and it is scholarly.

Is it a secret? Do I need a decoder ring? You're killing me, man! What is this ultra-scholarly-and-super-awesome argument that destroys Rook's chance of ever being right in his lifetime? I must see it! Largely so that any time Rook disagrees with me, I can remind him of how abysmally wrong he was.

Will: "I am correct!"

Rook: "You're obviously wrong!"

Will: "Remember that time you were so wrong it shook the universe, such that you could never be right again?"

Actually, you are quite good for inexpensive entertainment. Mind you, your brand of entertainment is found on almost all forums where many of the participants such as yourself engage in discussions like this only to be remembered as someone quite forgettable.

Will, this may be the the thing that destroys the RRS but, man, we just made you a mod. Enjoy it man. (Rook, Brian & Kelly)

Why not just give him total control? It can't possibly get any worse.

Are you still here?

Not for long, Rook. You were quite disappointing

I imagine you thought you were going to be able to assert all sorts of things and get away with it. I'm sure your rear is sore as it is, so lets hope it can recover from the door hitting it on the way out.

Well, you just go right ahead and glorify your own image by banning me.

You have been such a disappointment that I must tell you.

Your book will not be published by the current publishing house. But you know this already, don't you?

Tah-tah, have a nice day ... Rook.

Tell it walkin', bud. Tell it walkin'. And don't worry, I won't ban you. You can leave with your own tail between your legs, humiliated and in shame. And you can keep that delusion, that I won't be published.

I AM enjoying this alot too. GO 'saint' Will ..... public office next ? !

Anyway, the many flavorers of "Historians" .... From scribes of basic cold facts, to those that inject opinions as to the meaning of the parts of the incomplete ancient puzzles ....

I appreciate them all, as long as the "guess work" part is stated as such. Like an hypothesis in science. Then it is all much more honest .... Being a great unbiased historian is obviously alot of hard work.

Inventing history is a crime against truth.

Basically, I just wanted to say thanks again, you all ... for caring, my hats off to you.

Tell it walkin', bud. Tell it walkin'. And don't worry, I won't ban you. You can leave with your own tail between your legs, humiliated and in shame.

It's a pity he got all rude, because up to that point he was doing rather well. The stuff he posted on Tacitus et al's use of the word "superstition" pretty much demolished any basis for the argument that this word indicated that Pliny was Tacitus' source, for example. If he'd been able to maintain that level of detail and a suitable level of civility he might been useful around here.

"Any fool can make history, but it takes a genius to write it."Oscar Wilde

Well, you just go right ahead and glorify your own image by banning me.

You have been such a disappointment that I must tell you.

Your book will not be published by the current publishing house. But you know this already, don't you?

Tah-tah, have a nice day ... Rook.

Tell it walkin', bud. Tell it walkin'. And don't worry, I won't ban you. You can leave with your own tail between your legs, humiliated and in shame. And you can keep that delusion, that I won't be published.

Let's try to come to an understanding.

The first thing I faced from you the moment I posted was an unwarranted derogatory chastisement about me posting content that you claim you didn't support. Yet, the content regarding Tacitus that I posted was right from this website, and directly from your personal section of the forum.

So immediately you said the tone by being rude and obnoxious towards me, and you avoided my first argument.

You had no business being rude or obnoxious to me for posting material that comes from your own website, and expecting me to read some imaginary sign somewhere that says you no longer support your old arguments.

That is very childish.

Also, for your information, by the looks of your photo I would estimate that I am at least twice your age. I'm not a kid by any stretch. I am semi-retired, owner of a technology related company.

I have also been published numerous times, not for books, but for articles and papers. I have written two books, but cannot seem to be satisfied with either of them enough to submit them to the publishing house. I am also changing this or that in them, and never happy with them. Maybe someday I will throw caution to the wind and simply send them in.

My expertise in this genre is with ancient texts relative to Jesus of Nazareth. I am not perfect with Koine Greek and Latin, but I can get around it with the resources I have. I have studied theology for the better part of 30 years, and I know many scholars. Knowing a scholar is no big deal. Most people don't even realize that they actually know scholars. It just doesn't occur to them that the professor at the local university is a scholar.

Now let me relate to you a scenario of what it's actually like to be critiqued by a scholar, or a number of scholars.

I have a friend who is also proficient at this genre, and one day he approached me about a theory he had in regards Jesus. I thought it was worth exploring so we met up with an acquaintance of mine, a scholar, who arranged for us to come to his study and talk it over.

So we got there, and he had a couple other scholars there. I didn't know who they were so we all got introduced, sat down, and opened a fresh case of ice cold beer.

So they took my friends paper with his theory and looked it over. They circled stuff on it, talked it over, and finally told him to basically forget it because it wouldn't take him anywhere. They explained in detail why, and bot me and my friend were satisfied with their evaluation.

Nobody was offended, and nobody was offensive. All my friend did was nod, smile, sigh, and say, "Oh well. At least now I know."

The whole thing took maybe 45 minutes, but we stuck around because of the beer, and watched a hockey game on TV.

My point of this is that criticism is the very best thing anyone can get in regards to their scholastic work. My friend dropped his theory, not because of what the scholars told him, but because he understood what the scholars were saying.

He listened.

He listened, and then went on to greater things, far greater.

I myself have dropped more theories than I can count. I have learned to not be 100% positive about anything, because something always has this nasty habit of coming around and instilling doubt into everything. Doubt is like a big ugly chick who keeps following you around and never shuts the hell up.

But Doubt always has good intentions. It plays the devil's advocate for the sake of the greater good. Because of Doubt I can say I know alot of things, but I don't know anything for sure. Doubt keeps you honest, it really does.

So did Tacitus get his info from Pliny? Did he get it from the streets? Did he get it from Roman records?

Hell, I don't know. But what I do know with reasonable certainty is that around AD 112, we have a record of man whom is almost universally recognized as Jesus Christ being crucified by Pontius Pilate.

All the speculation and theories will never change that fact. By its existence alone, the record of Tacitus is evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus, and no amount of speculation will ever change that.

People can say anything they want against it. They can come up with theories, arguments from silence, and whatnot, but at the end of the day the record of Tacitus will still exist, and there is no other evidence to refute it.

So don't take offense at those of us who critique your work on such things as Tacitus, but instead embrace it heartedly. An earnest search for the truth always begins within your own heart. Truth can never be found through the eyes of biasness, because the bias will always swing you towards a belief, even if the truth was staring you in the face.

Rook, you would be far greater than you could imagine if you took the knowledge you have and learned to apply it without any bias whatsoever. I should know, I used to be a Christian, and in fact, a youth pastor many many years ago. The religion blinded me from the truth, but since then I learned to believe in nothing religious.

Perhaps sometime we'll discuss the Gnostics. I just recently reworked the Apocalypse of Peter, and it's under review. I have it online, but wont post the link here.

I myself have dropped more theories than I can count. I have learned to not be 100% positive about anything, because something always has this nasty habit of coming around and instilling doubt into everything. Doubt is like a big ugly chick who keeps following you around and never shuts the hell up.

But Doubt always has good intentions. It plays the devil's advocate for the sake of the greater good. Because of Doubt I can say I know alot of things, but I don't know anything for sure. Doubt keeps you honest, it really does.

Splendid

I take a skeptical approach, but I am not sure whether that is correct!

Hell, I don't know. But what I do know with reasonable certainty is that around AD 112, we have a record of man whom is almost universally recognized as Jesus Christ being crucified by Pontius Pilate.

No, you have a mention of followers. In a Latin text. When I say "Latin text", anyone "scholarly" thinks "of dubious integrity". Latin texts are doubtful by their very nature. They're hints at what might have been written. There's so little preserved in Latin that very few solid conclusions can be reached. That was my earlier point.

FathomFFI wrote:

All the speculation and theories will never change that fact. By its existence alone, the record of Tacitus is evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus, and no amount of speculation will ever change that.

But that's preposterous. Tacitus mentioning someone wouldn't make him real any more than any other Roman writer. Tacitus mentioning someone's followers makes one wonder how he missed the original figurehead altogether.

Hell, I don't know. But what I do know with reasonable certainty is that around AD 112, we have a record of man whom is almost universally recognized as Jesus Christ being crucified by Pontius Pilate.

No, you have a mention of followers. In a Latin text. When I say "Latin text", anyone "scholarly" thinks "of dubious integrity". Latin texts are doubtful by their very nature. They're hints at what might have been written. There's so little preserved in Latin that very few solid conclusions can be reached. That was my earlier point.

Most of what you said above is a red herring. Here are the things almost universally agreed upon by world scholarship.

1. The text mentions Christ.

2. The text mentions Christians.

3. The text mentions that Pontius Pilate crucified Christ.

No reputable scholar denies any of the above. If you have a reputable scholar who does deny any of the above, please list his name here so we can research him.

HisWillness wrote:

FathomFFI wrote:

All the speculation and theories will never change that fact. By its existence alone, the record of Tacitus is evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus, and no amount of speculation will ever change that.

But that's preposterous. Tacitus mentioning someone wouldn't make him real any more than any other Roman writer. Tacitus mentioning someone's followers makes one wonder how he missed the original figurehead altogether.

My statement did not say anything about making him real. Please read the words below clearly, and you'll see my meaning:

FathomFFI: "the record of Tacitus is evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus"

The Tacitus text is part of a collective of evidence used to support the existence of Jesus. Alone, it is weak, but as part of a collective, it strengthens the collective, and therefore strengthens the argument.

Also, there is not one shred of tangible evidence which disputes the Tacitus text. All arguments against it are mere theories, but no actual evidence exists to contest it's authenticity. Theories do not represent evidence, because they are not conclusively proven.

And that is what is meant by, "By it's mere existence, the Tacitus text is evidence to support the existence of Jesus.

HisWillness wrote:

FathomFFI wrote:

People can say anything they want against it.

Apparently people can also say anything they want for it.

But at the end of the day, it speaks for itself by it's own mere existence., just as your own existence speaks for itself. Should I make a claim that you are not an authentic representation of the human race?

If Tacitus got this information from Roman records, why would he not use Jesus' name?

The only thing that he mentions is the appellation Christus (the anointed one) - wouldn't the Roman records have Jesus' name in some form (if it was Jesus and not just someone claiming messiahship)?

Hello.

You have a valid question, and shows clear objective reasoning.

I do not know the answer for a certainty, however I will propose a theory.

Have you noticed how the Roman records by the ancient historians refer to people by their last name? Tacitus, for example, had a first name of Cornelius. Pliny's full name was Caius Plinius Caecilius Secundus. Suetonius had the name of Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus.

You will find that it is consistent throughout existing Roman records whereas most people were either referred to by either their last name, their title, or a name which identified them with one of their notable ancestors, such as Pliny the Younger being distinguished from Pliny the Elder.

In the case of Jesus, the Romans could have viewed him by his title of Christ, or accepted that the name of Christ was the identifying marker which separated this Jesus from all other persons named Jesus in their records.

If Tacitus got this information from Roman records, why would he not use Jesus' name?

The only thing that he mentions is the appellation Christus (the anointed one) - wouldn't the Roman records have Jesus' name in some form (if it was Jesus and not just someone claiming messiahship)?

Hello.

You have a valid question, and shows clear objective reasoning.

I do not know the answer for a certainty, however I will propose a theory.

Have you noticed how the Roman records by the ancient historians refer to people by their last name? Tacitus, for example, had a first name of Cornelius. Pliny's full name was Caius Plinius Caecilius Secundus. Suetonius had the name of Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus.

You will find that it is consistent throughout existing Roman records whereas most people were either referred to by either their last name, their title, or a name which identified them with one of their notable ancestors, such as Pliny the Younger being distinguished from Pliny the Elder.

In the case of Jesus, the Romans could have viewed him by his title of Christ, or accepted that the name of Christ was the identifying marker which separated this Jesus from all other persons named Jesus in their records.

Regards.

Possible.

As Jesus never directly called himself the Messiah (Christ) would the Romans have accepted that title as "official"?

Would they have thought, "Others call him the Christ so that's what will put down in the records"? If he existed and was crucified, he was not for being a religious figure (the Romans wouldn't have cared about that). He was killed for sedition against Rome, wasn't he?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

If Tacitus got this information from Roman records, why would he not use Jesus' name?

The only thing that he mentions is the appellation Christus (the anointed one) - wouldn't the Roman records have Jesus' name in some form (if it was Jesus and not just someone claiming messiahship)?

Hello.

You have a valid question, and shows clear objective reasoning.

I do not know the answer for a certainty, however I will propose a theory.

Have you noticed how the Roman records by the ancient historians refer to people by their last name? Tacitus, for example, had a first name of Cornelius. Pliny's full name was Caius Plinius Caecilius Secundus. Suetonius had the name of Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus.

You will find that it is consistent throughout existing Roman records whereas most people were either referred to by either their last name, their title, or a name which identified them with one of their notable ancestors, such as Pliny the Younger being distinguished from Pliny the Elder.

In the case of Jesus, the Romans could have viewed him by his title of Christ, or accepted that the name of Christ was the identifying marker which separated this Jesus from all other persons named Jesus in their records.

Regards.

Possible.

As Jesus never directly called himself the Messiah (Christ) would the Romans have accepted that title as "official"?

Would they have thought, "Others call him the Christ so that's what will put down in the records"? If he existed and was crucified, he was not for being a religious figure (the Romans wouldn't have cared about that). He was killed for sedition against Rome, wasn't he?

It really depends on what the Romans believed, and obviously they did not believe Jesus to actually be the Messiah as far as their religion was concerned. This leads us to theorize that the reason they called him Christus was purely to identify him as to what he was referred to as being by the Christians.

As far as the reasons for Jesus being killed by the Romans, all we can really say is that Pontius Pilate was blackmailed into doing it by the leaders of the Jewish Sanhedrin who threatened to revolt if Pilate refused. This is a consistency in Gospel records, as well as other texts.

If Tacitus got this information from Roman records, why would he not use Jesus' name?

The only thing that he mentions is the appellation Christus (the anointed one) - wouldn't the Roman records have Jesus' name in some form (if it was Jesus and not just someone claiming messiahship)?

Hello.

You have a valid question, and shows clear objective reasoning.

I do not know the answer for a certainty, however I will propose a theory.

Have you noticed how the Roman records by the ancient historians refer to people by their last name? Tacitus, for example, had a first name of Cornelius. Pliny's full name was Caius Plinius Caecilius Secundus. Suetonius had the name of Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus.

You will find that it is consistent throughout existing Roman records whereas most people were either referred to by either their last name, their title, or a name which identified them with one of their notable ancestors, such as Pliny the Younger being distinguished from Pliny the Elder.

In the case of Jesus, the Romans could have viewed him by his title of Christ, or accepted that the name of Christ was the identifying marker which separated this Jesus from all other persons named Jesus in their records.

Regards.

Possible.

As Jesus never directly called himself the Messiah (Christ) would the Romans have accepted that title as "official"?

Would they have thought, "Others call him the Christ so that's what will put down in the records"? If he existed and was crucified, he was not for being a religious figure (the Romans wouldn't have cared about that). He was killed for sedition against Rome, wasn't he?

It really depends on what the Romans believed, and obviously they did not believe Jesus to actually be the Messiah as far as their religion was concerned. This leads us to theorize that the reason they called him Christus was purely to identify him as to what he was referred to as being by the Christians.

As far as the reasons for Jesus being killed by the Romans, all we can really say is that Pontius Pilate was blackmailed into doing it by the leaders of the Jewish Sanhedrin who threatened to revolt if Pilate refused. This is a consistency in Gospel records, as well as other texts.

I thought, according to the Bible, Christ's followers weren't called Christians until later (the group at Antioch).

As for the "blackmail" shown in Scripture - I wonder. History shows that Pilate was very good at crushing rebellions. Would that threat really have carried any weight with him, even with the loss of his patron in Rome?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

The naming of the followers of Jesus as Christians at Antioch occured at least 60 years previous to the Tacitus text. The name would have been well known by then.

In regards to the blackmail carrying any weight with Pilate, we can see that the resolve of the Jews did indeed influence Pilate, as evidenced by Josephus. In Book 18, Chapter 3, Verse 1, we read how the Jews would rather accept death than allow Pilate to profane Jerusalem with images of Caesar. The resolve of the Jews to rather die than accept the images convinced Pilate to remove the images.

Therefore, we do indeed find evidence where the Jews could indeed influence the decision making powers of Pilate, for Josephus records that what the Jews did was not so unlike blackmail, for the Jews were basically claiming that Pilate would have to kill them all before any images would be permitted to remain in Jerusalem.

The naming of the followers of Jesus as Christians at Antioch occured at least 60 years previous to the Tacitus text. The name would have been well known by then.

In regards to the blackmail carrying any weight with Pilate, we can see that the resolve of the Jews did indeed influence Pilate, as evidenced by Josephus. In Book 18, Chapter 3, Verse 1, we read how the Jews would rather accept death than allow Pilate to profane Jerusalem with images of Caesar. The resolve of the Jews to rather die than accept the images convinced Pilate to remove the images.

Therefore, we do indeed find evidence where the Jews could indeed influence the decision making powers of Pilate, for Josephus records that what the Jews did was not so unlike blackmail, for the Jews were basically claiming that Pilate would have to kill them all before any images would be permitted to remain in Jerusalem.

Thanks for the information.

There are still the questions of what makes the Christus Tacitus mentioned the Jesus of the Bible and what makes that Jesus the Son of God.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

The naming of the followers of Jesus as Christians at Antioch occured at least 60 years previous to the Tacitus text. The name would have been well known by then.

In regards to the blackmail carrying any weight with Pilate, we can see that the resolve of the Jews did indeed influence Pilate, as evidenced by Josephus. In Book 18, Chapter 3, Verse 1, we read how the Jews would rather accept death than allow Pilate to profane Jerusalem with images of Caesar. The resolve of the Jews to rather die than accept the images convinced Pilate to remove the images.

Therefore, we do indeed find evidence where the Jews could indeed influence the decision making powers of Pilate, for Josephus records that what the Jews did was not so unlike blackmail, for the Jews were basically claiming that Pilate would have to kill them all before any images would be permitted to remain in Jerusalem.

Thanks for the information.

There are still the questions of what makes the Christus Tacitus mentioned the Jesus of the Bible and what makes that Jesus the Son of God.

You are welcome.

There is no certainty of anything, however the content of the Tacitus text works seamlessly with the Gospel record of Jesus Christ being crucified by Pontius Pilate. This is a consistency which allows us to reasonably approximate the truth in regards to the text.

With all available evidence, we can use Occam's Razor and remove all the rhetoric and end up with a consistency that around AD 33, Pontius Pilate crucified a man known as Jesus the Christ.

As far as Jesus being the Son of God, it really doesn't matter. It's a belief system, and nothing more.

The naming of the followers of Jesus as Christians at Antioch occured at least 60 years previous to the Tacitus text. The name would have been well known by then.

In regards to the blackmail carrying any weight with Pilate, we can see that the resolve of the Jews did indeed influence Pilate, as evidenced by Josephus. In Book 18, Chapter 3, Verse 1, we read how the Jews would rather accept death than allow Pilate to profane Jerusalem with images of Caesar. The resolve of the Jews to rather die than accept the images convinced Pilate to remove the images.

Therefore, we do indeed find evidence where the Jews could indeed influence the decision making powers of Pilate, for Josephus records that what the Jews did was not so unlike blackmail, for the Jews were basically claiming that Pilate would have to kill them all before any images would be permitted to remain in Jerusalem.

Thanks for the information.

There are still the questions of what makes the Christus Tacitus mentioned the Jesus of the Bible and what makes that Jesus the Son of God.

You are welcome.

There is no certainty of anything, however the content of the Tacitus text works seamlessly with the Gospel record of Jesus Christ being crucified by Pontius Pilate. This is a consistency which allows us to reasonably approximate the truth in regards to the text.

With all available evidence, we can use Occam's Razor and remove all the rhetoric and end up with a consistency that around AD 33, Pontius Pilate crucified a man known as Jesus the Christ.

As far as Jesus being the Son of God, it really doesn't matter. It's a belief system, and nothing more.

If you're claiming that Tacitus proves the Bible true (it seems that you are), then how could the Bible's claims of this Jesus the Christ being the Son of God not matter?

The naming of the followers of Jesus as Christians at Antioch occured at least 60 years previous to the Tacitus text. The name would have been well known by then.

In regards to the blackmail carrying any weight with Pilate, we can see that the resolve of the Jews did indeed influence Pilate, as evidenced by Josephus. In Book 18, Chapter 3, Verse 1, we read how the Jews would rather accept death than allow Pilate to profane Jerusalem with images of Caesar. The resolve of the Jews to rather die than accept the images convinced Pilate to remove the images.

Therefore, we do indeed find evidence where the Jews could indeed influence the decision making powers of Pilate, for Josephus records that what the Jews did was not so unlike blackmail, for the Jews were basically claiming that Pilate would have to kill them all before any images would be permitted to remain in Jerusalem.

Thanks for the information.

There are still the questions of what makes the Christus Tacitus mentioned the Jesus of the Bible and what makes that Jesus the Son of God.

You are welcome.

There is no certainty of anything, however the content of the Tacitus text works seamlessly with the Gospel record of Jesus Christ being crucified by Pontius Pilate. This is a consistency which allows us to reasonably approximate the truth in regards to the text.

With all available evidence, we can use Occam's Razor and remove all the rhetoric and end up with a consistency that around AD 33, Pontius Pilate crucified a man known as Jesus the Christ.

As far as Jesus being the Son of God, it really doesn't matter. It's a belief system, and nothing more.

If you're claiming that Tacitus proves the Bible true (it seems that you are), then how could the Bible's claims of this Jesus the Christ being the Son of God not matter?

Please understand that I did not say that the Tacitus text proves the "Bible" to be true. What I was saying is that the Tacitus text supports a consistency in the "Gospel" records of Jesus being crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Using objective reasoning, the best way to view the Gospel accounts is not from a true or false perspective, but from the perspective that the Gospel writers were writing of what they believed to be the truth.

A state of belief during ancient times was a far greater reality than perhaps you would perceive. Look at the Muslims of today, for example. Look at how the suicide bombers have such a strong belief in the Quran that they will die for those beliefs.

What I am saying is, a belief is a reality to those of the faith. The Gospel writers would have been writing of events which were as real to them as to what modern day Muslims have been lead to believe about the Quran.

There was no intent to lie or deceive, but only to relay the "truth" as the Gospel writers viewed it. It was their reality, and far as they were concerned, an unquestionable truth.

Therefore, you will see a considerable amount of unintentional embellishments in the Gospel records regarding the life of Jesus Christ. You will see fantastic stories of miracles mixed in with factual events, all because the Gospel writers were thoroughly convinced that what they were writing about was truthful and factual.

Therefore, the perception that the Gospel record is either true or false is really not how it should be perceived. The reality is that the Gospel records were a reality to the writers insomuch as, like the Muslims, there was simply no doubt.

The naming of the followers of Jesus as Christians at Antioch occured at least 60 years previous to the Tacitus text. The name would have been well known by then.

In regards to the blackmail carrying any weight with Pilate, we can see that the resolve of the Jews did indeed influence Pilate, as evidenced by Josephus. In Book 18, Chapter 3, Verse 1, we read how the Jews would rather accept death than allow Pilate to profane Jerusalem with images of Caesar. The resolve of the Jews to rather die than accept the images convinced Pilate to remove the images.

Therefore, we do indeed find evidence where the Jews could indeed influence the decision making powers of Pilate, for Josephus records that what the Jews did was not so unlike blackmail, for the Jews were basically claiming that Pilate would have to kill them all before any images would be permitted to remain in Jerusalem.

Thanks for the information.

There are still the questions of what makes the Christus Tacitus mentioned the Jesus of the Bible and what makes that Jesus the Son of God.

You are welcome.

There is no certainty of anything, however the content of the Tacitus text works seamlessly with the Gospel record of Jesus Christ being crucified by Pontius Pilate. This is a consistency which allows us to reasonably approximate the truth in regards to the text.

With all available evidence, we can use Occam's Razor and remove all the rhetoric and end up with a consistency that around AD 33, Pontius Pilate crucified a man known as Jesus the Christ.

As far as Jesus being the Son of God, it really doesn't matter. It's a belief system, and nothing more.

If you're claiming that Tacitus proves the Bible true (it seems that you are), then how could the Bible's claims of this Jesus the Christ being the Son of God not matter?

Please understand that I did not say that the Tacitus text proves the "Bible" to be true. What I was saying is that the Tacitus text supports a consistency in the "Gospel" records of Jesus being crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Using objective reasoning, the best way to view the Gospel accounts is not from a true or false perspective, but from the perspective that the Gospel writers were writing of what they believed to be the truth.

A state of belief during ancient times was a far greater reality than perhaps you would perceive. Look at the Muslims of today, for example. Look at how the suicide bombers have such a strong belief in the Quran that they will die for those beliefs.

What I am saying is, a belief is a reality to those of the faith. The Gospel writers would have been writing of events which were as real to them as to what modern day Muslims have been lead to believe about the Quran.

There was no intent to lie or deceive, but only to relay the "truth" as the Gospel writers viewed it. It was their reality, and far as they were concerned, an unquestionable truth.

Therefore, you will see a considerable amount of unintentional embellishments in the Gospel records regarding the life of Jesus Christ. You will see fantastic stories of miracles mixed in with factual events, all because the Gospel writers were thoroughly convinced that what they were writing about was truthful and factual.

Therefore, the perception that the Gospel record is either true or false is really not how it should be perceived. The reality is that the Gospel records were a reality to the writers insomuch as, like the Muslims, there was simply no doubt.

Or they were taking Paul's concept of Christ, mixing in a rabbi named Yeshua that they liked and respected and throwing in some redeemer and hero stories from other cultures for good measure.

You don't have to believe in the product in order to sell it - just convincing people that you believe in the product is enough.

I'll throw this in before you bring up martyrdoms - In my opinion, most if not all the martyrs were killed because they pissed off those in power as opposed to their beliefs.

My speculation is as good as yours

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Please understand that I did not say that the Tacitus text proves the "Bible" to be true. What I was saying is that the Tacitus text supports a consistency in the "Gospel" records of Jesus being crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Using objective reasoning, the best way to view the Gospel accounts is not from a true or false perspective, but from the perspective that the Gospel writers were writing of what they believed to be the truth.

A state of belief during ancient times was a far greater reality than perhaps you would perceive. Look at the Muslims of today, for example. Look at how the suicide bombers have such a strong belief in the Quran that they will die for those beliefs.

What I am saying is, a belief is a reality to those of the faith. The Gospel writers would have been writing of events which were as real to them as to what modern day Muslims have been lead to believe about the Quran.

There was no intent to lie or deceive, but only to relay the "truth" as the Gospel writers viewed it. It was their reality, and far as they were concerned, an unquestionable truth.

Therefore, you will see a considerable amount of unintentional embellishments in the Gospel records regarding the life of Jesus Christ. You will see fantastic stories of miracles mixed in with factual events, all because the Gospel writers were thoroughly convinced that what they were writing about was truthful and factual.

Therefore, the perception that the Gospel record is either true or false is really not how it should be perceived. The reality is that the Gospel records were a reality to the writers insomuch as, like the Muslims, there was simply no doubt.

Or they were taking Paul's concept of Christ, mixing in a rabbi named Yeshua that they liked and respected and throwing in some redeemer and hero stories from other cultures for good measure.

You don't have to believe in the product in order to sell it - just convincing people that you believe in the product is enough.

I'll throw this in before you bring up martyrdoms - In my opinion, most if not all the martyrs were killed because they pissed off those in power as opposed to their beliefs.

My speculation is as good as yours

At the end of the day, all anyone has is speculation.

However, a close examination of your speculation above reveals that even you can accept that rhetoric can be mixed in with facts.

Therefore, you should have no problem accepting the possibility that a man named Jesus who was called Christ was executed by Pontius Pilate, and from there some rhetoric was mixed in with that fact.

Please understand that I did not say that the Tacitus text proves the "Bible" to be true. What I was saying is that the Tacitus text supports a consistency in the "Gospel" records of Jesus being crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Using objective reasoning, the best way to view the Gospel accounts is not from a true or false perspective, but from the perspective that the Gospel writers were writing of what they believed to be the truth.

A state of belief during ancient times was a far greater reality than perhaps you would perceive. Look at the Muslims of today, for example. Look at how the suicide bombers have such a strong belief in the Quran that they will die for those beliefs.

What I am saying is, a belief is a reality to those of the faith. The Gospel writers would have been writing of events which were as real to them as to what modern day Muslims have been lead to believe about the Quran.

There was no intent to lie or deceive, but only to relay the "truth" as the Gospel writers viewed it. It was their reality, and far as they were concerned, an unquestionable truth.

Therefore, you will see a considerable amount of unintentional embellishments in the Gospel records regarding the life of Jesus Christ. You will see fantastic stories of miracles mixed in with factual events, all because the Gospel writers were thoroughly convinced that what they were writing about was truthful and factual.

Therefore, the perception that the Gospel record is either true or false is really not how it should be perceived. The reality is that the Gospel records were a reality to the writers insomuch as, like the Muslims, there was simply no doubt.

Or they were taking Paul's concept of Christ, mixing in a rabbi named Yeshua that they liked and respected and throwing in some redeemer and hero stories from other cultures for good measure.

You don't have to believe in the product in order to sell it - just convincing people that you believe in the product is enough.

I'll throw this in before you bring up martyrdoms - In my opinion, most if not all the martyrs were killed because they pissed off those in power as opposed to their beliefs.

My speculation is as good as yours

At the end of the day, all anyone has is speculation.

However, a close examination of your speculation above reveals that even you can accept that rhetoric can be mixed in with facts.

Therefore, you should have no problem accepting the possibility that a man named Jesus who was called Christ was executed by Pontius Pilate, and from there some rhetoric was mixed in with that fact.

I have never had a problem accepting that possibility - Yeshua was a common name and folks claiming to be messiahs/faith healers were a dime a dozen at that time. And the Romans did love their crucifixions.

The jump to whether this particular Yeshua was/is the resurrected son of Yahweh and the savior of all mankind - you'll have to work a tad harder to convince me of that.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Why are we all taking this guy seriously again? Seriously he has not yet proven that Tacitus was using roman records. That makes two things we're waiting on him for - evidence and for him to leave, both of which he said he'd do. The guy is a liar and that is that.

I have never had a problem accepting that possibility - Yeshua was a common name and folks claiming to be messiahs/faith healers were a dime a dozen at that time. And the Romans did love their crucifixions.

The jump to whether this particular Yeshua was/is the resurrected son of Yahweh and the savior of all mankind - you'll have to work a tad harder to convince me of that.

Perhaps you have mistaken me for a Christian. I do not accept the resurrection story, or anything else that is too fantastic to believe. I am not religious at all.

Let me explain to you what my goals actually are in relation to all of this by comparing my agenda to that of the RRS.

The RRS is propagating a theory that Jesus never existed, and all the information regarding Jesus was manufactured by Paul and other early Christians. The intent of the RRS is obviously to discredit the religion of Christianity by proposing an alternate view based upon theory.

My position is quite different. By humanizing Jesus, and showing him to be a mere man who propagated a philosophy which resulted in his ultimate death, then we can take a rational approach to using all available evidence to showing how Christianity embellished the history of Jesus to meet its needs. From there, we demystify the deity which Christians worship, and attempt to reveal the truth from a strictly historical perspective.

Where Rook is only adding more mysticism, I am attempting to remove it all together and reveal an actual history. To me, what Rook is doing is merely creating another religion, whether he sees it like that or not.

But what I am doing is totally removing any religion at all, and showing a historical account of an unusual man who died for what he believed in.

Why are we all taking this guy seriously again? Seriously he has not yet proven that Tacitus was using roman records. That makes two things we're waiting on him for - evidence and for him to leave, both of which he said he'd do. The guy is a liar and that is that.

Would you be so kind as to direct me to the quote of myself where I said that I would "prove that Tacitus was using Roman records?"

I have never had a problem accepting that possibility - Yeshua was a common name and folks claiming to be messiahs/faith healers were a dime a dozen at that time. And the Romans did love their crucifixions.

The jump to whether this particular Yeshua was/is the resurrected son of Yahweh and the savior of all mankind - you'll have to work a tad harder to convince me of that.

Perhaps you have mistaken me for a Christian. I do not accept the resurrection story, or anything else that is too fantastic to believe. I am not religious at all.

Let me explain to you what my goals actually are in relation to all of this by comparing my agenda to that of the RRS.

The RRS is propagating a theory that Jesus never existed, and all the information regarding Jesus was manufactured by Paul and other early Christians. The intent of the RRS is obviously to discredit the religion of Christianity by proposing an alternate view based upon theory.

My position is quite different. By humanizing Jesus, and showing him to be a mere man who propagated a philosophy which resulted in his ultimate death, then we can take a rational approach to using all available evidence to showing how Christianity embellished the history of Jesus to meet its needs. From there, we demystify the deity which Christians worship, and attempt to reveal the truth from a strictly historical perspective.

Where Rook is only adding more mysticism, I am attempting to remove it all together and reveal an actual history. To me, what Rook is doing is merely creating another religion, whether he sees it like that or not.

But what I am doing is totally removing any religion at all, and showing a historical account of an unusual man who died for what he believed in.

Dying for one's beliefs doesn't make one unusual. People have done it for thousands of years.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin